Leopard Lupus

A typical question to ask in regards to this lens... Is the 50 f/1.2 softer than the 50 f/1.4? I currently own the 1.4 and love it, but I am curious if the IQ from the 1.2 is worth the upgrade. I am currently shooting with a 5D mk ll. Thanks!

A typical question to ask in regards to this lens... Is the 50 f/1.2 softer than the 50 f/1.4? I currently own the 1.4 and love it, but I am curious if the IQ from the 1.2 is worth the upgrade. I am currently shooting with a 5D mk ll. Thanks!

If you like shallow depth of field (shooting in the range f/1.2 - f/2. the 50 f/1.2 will provide better image quality, it has nicer bokeh, better contrast and less of the "dreamy look" aberrations wide open. If you want maximum sharpness at f/8 for a landscape picture the 50 f/1.4 will perform slightly better. So yes the f/1.2 is slightly softer for small apertures, but performs better at large apertures, so it depends on what you want to use it for if it is right for you.

Lenses are optimized to get certain properties, it is generally not possible to make a lens that is "best on everything". It is quite typical that the lower cost versions are sharper at small apertures and the more expensive have better bokeh and contrast wide open. As a differentiator to further mark this difference it is common to make a non-round aperture for the lower cost versions to make the bokeh less good than it could to be (I doubt that a rounded aperture actually cost very much), this is also the case in the Canon 50mm range.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 03:20:05 AM by torger »

Logged

branden

If you like shallow depth of field (shooting in the range f/1.2 - f/2. the 50 f/1.2 will provide better image quality, it has nicer bokeh, better contrast and less of the "dreamy look" aberrations wide open. If you want maximum sharpness at f/8 for a landscape picture the 50 f/1.4 will perform slightly better. So yes the f/1.2 is slightly softer for small apertures, but performs better at large apertures, so it depends on what you want to use it for if it is right for you.

The "dreamy look" you refer to is called halation, and I ended up selling both my 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8 because they frequently demonstrated halation at their widest apertures. It wasn't something that happened every time, but I was never able to track down the exact circumstances that caused it to occur, which made them both unreliable, as far as I was concerned.

For shooting landscapes, though, you're right. Large apertures really aren't as important as other lens factors for landscape shots. I have a Zeiss 2/50 makro-planar for landscapes. I don't have a portrait 50, so just the Zeiss for that as well. For events, I just get by without a 50 for the time being. I'm curious to see if Canon releases an updated 50mm f/1.4 lens, I think I would purchase that very quickly.

A typical question to ask in regards to this lens... Is the 50 f/1.2 softer than the 50 f/1.4? I currently own the 1.4 and love it, but I am curious if the IQ from the 1.2 is worth the upgrade. I am currently shooting with a 5D mk ll. Thanks!

I have both the 50 f1.2 and the 50 f1.4. My use is mainly portrait and I usually shoot at apperture between f1.2 and f5.6 with my 50 f1.2. I have not made the test at aperture smaller like f6.3 or f8, but i can say from my own experience (again I am just a smaple of one) I concure with an earlier comment that the 50 f1.2 for my application has much better color, contrast and is very sharp.

Everytime I put back the 50 1.4 on my camera (5D mkII) I cant beleive how washed out and boring the image look compared with the 50 1.2 and the images requires more software processing afterward. I dont usually do landscape but I actually did a few golf course shot with both lens a few weeks ago and the 50 1.2 won hands down - again I was shooting below f8.

I am not a pro photographer, I am just an amateur, but for me the 50 1.2 has proven a very good investment and dont regret ever buying it. I know it gets mix review sometime but for me it works.

A typical question to ask in regards to this lens... Is the 50 f/1.2 softer than the 50 f/1.4? I currently own the 1.4 and love it, but I am curious if the IQ from the 1.2 is worth the upgrade. I am currently shooting with a 5D mk ll. Thanks!

I have both the 50 f1.2 and the 50 f1.4. My use is mainly portrait and I usually shoot at apperture between f1.2 and f5.6 with my 50 f1.2. I have not made the test at aperture smaller like f6.3 or f8, but i can say from my own experience (again I am just a smaple of one) I concure with an earlier comment that the 50 f1.2 for my application has much better color, contrast and is very sharp.

Everytime I put back the 50 1.4 on my camera (5D mkII) I cant beleive how washed out and boring the image look compared with the 50 1.2 and the images requires more software processing afterward. I dont usually do landscape but I actually did a few golf course shot with both lens a few weeks ago and the 50 1.2 won hands down - again I was shooting below f8.

I am not a pro photographer, I am just an amateur, but for me the 50 1.2 has proven a very good investment and dont regret ever buying it. I know it gets mix review sometime but for me it works.

I am actually putting my 50 1.4 for sell cause I never use it...

I forgot to add that I do a lot of indoor shoots and especially between f1.4 and f2.8, the 50 f1.2 simply kills the 50 f1.4 in sharpness at those aperture...

willrobb

With lights as well it's my go to portrait lens for assignments. Here's one from a portrait session with a bar owner in Kanazawa Japan. I had 5 bars to cover in 4 hours, bar shots, bottle shots and owner portraits, so just a quick set up with speedlites and softboxes.

One of the uses where the 50mm f1.2 L really amazes me is making me able to still shoot handheld at night. This is wide open at 1.2 shot with a 7D at 1/50s and ISO 3200 at Singapore Night Zoo.

What amazes me is that you take a photo of a tiger from like 100 feet away, and then you speak as though the remarkable thing is how you are able to do the shot hand-held. Apparently you are a lot braver than I am!

If you like shallow depth of field (shooting in the range f/1.2 - f/2. the 50 f/1.2 will provide better image quality, it has nicer bokeh, better contrast and less of the "dreamy look" aberrations wide open. If you want maximum sharpness at f/8 for a landscape picture the 50 f/1.4 will perform slightly better. So yes the f/1.2 is slightly softer for small apertures, but performs better at large apertures, so it depends on what you want to use it for if it is right for you.

The "dreamy look" you refer to is called halation, and I ended up selling both my 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8 because they frequently demonstrated halation at their widest apertures. It wasn't something that happened every time, but I was never able to track down the exact circumstances that caused it to occur, which made them both unreliable, as far as I was concerned.

For shooting landscapes, though, you're right. Large apertures really aren't as important as other lens factors for landscape shots. I have a Zeiss 2/50 makro-planar for landscapes. I don't have a portrait 50, so just the Zeiss for that as well. For events, I just get by without a 50 for the time being. I'm curious to see if Canon releases an updated 50mm f/1.4 lens, I think I would purchase that very quickly.

Usually, I like it when I can get it to halate. If I wanted 50mm sharp, I would use my 24-105. When using my 50 1.4, I almost always am less than f2, usually am slap at f 1.4...

If you have AF-issues with this lens, you need to calibrate it, calibrate your camera or stop using it at 2,8-4,5!

The AF of my 50 L beats the cr@p out of my 85 L, both speed and accuracy, and it's a lot better than my (now sold) 35 L. It's the best AF of any 50mm. Color and contrast from wide open is just fantastic. Where it struggles is when approaching MFD, due to the lack of floating elements. But shoot at 1-1,5m, and it's not an issue.

I read a lot of negative stuff about this lens, and people saying the "50mm f1,4 is just as sharp" Well, then you have either forgot to remove the lens cap or haven't tried it at all. It's lightyears ahead of the 1,4 when it comes to sharpness, where it counts, between 1,2 and 2,8.

Superb build! and weathersealed, which the 85 and 35 isn't, big deal for me! The only lens I like as good is the newly bought 24 L II, now with that lens you can talk about AF issues from hell, replaced two copies and I've read reviews and hear of many with the same problem, the AF was set to "random" with those copies. Now that I have a working one, in combo with the 50 L , oh wow....

Never ever use servo with anything faster than a 2.8 lens. Always shoot F1.4 or 1.2 in single shot mode. Just try both modes and try focussing. Single shot locks on with one press, servo keeps it hunting.